Settlement Reached in 2021 Navy Helicopter Crash Lawsuit

Settlement Reached in Lawsuit Regarding Fatal 2021 Navy Helicopter Crash

On November 24, 2025, a significant legal development occurred regarding the tragic 2021 crash of a U.S. Navy MH-60S Sea Hawk helicopter. The families of three sailors who lost their lives in the incident reached a confidential settlement with Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., a Lockheed Martin company. This agreement resolves a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, bringing a conclusion to the legal battle over allegations of design defects and negligence.

The lawsuit, originally filed in August 2023, centered on the mechanical failure that led to the loss of the aircraft, known by its call sign “Loosefoot 616.” The plaintiffs represented the estates of Petty Officer 2nd Class James Buriak, Petty Officer 2nd Class Sarah Burns, and Petty Officer 3rd Class Bailey Tucker. These sailors, along with Lt. Bradley Foster and Lt. Paul Fridley, perished when their helicopter experienced catastrophic vibrations and fell from the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln into the Pacific Ocean.

This settlement marks the end of the civil litigation against the helicopter manufacturer for these specific families. While the financial terms remain undisclosed, the case has highlighted critical issues regarding military aircraft maintenance protocols, design safety, and the legal frameworks governing accidents at sea. We examine the details of the allegations, the technical findings of the Navy’s investigation, and the broader safety implications for the fleet.

Allegations of Design Flaws and Negligence

The core of the plaintiffs’ case against Sikorsky Aircraft rested on the assertion that the MH-60S helicopter contained a design flaw within its hydraulic hose assembly. According to court documents, the families argued that the hydraulic damper hoses were positioned too close to the main rotor attachment point. This proximity, they alleged, made the components highly susceptible to damage during routine maintenance operations.

Legal representatives for the families, specifically attorneys from Pilot Law, P.C., contended that the manufacturer failed to warn operators of this vulnerability. The lawsuit claimed that the design allowed for the steel braids inside the hose to be flattened or crushed without leaving visible external signs of damage. Consequently, maintenance crews could not detect the structural compromise through standard visual inspections, creating a latent hazard that could lead to catastrophic failure during flight operations.

The complaint was filed under the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA), a federal statute from 1920 that governs civil recovery for deaths occurring beyond three nautical miles from the shore of the United States. The plaintiffs sought to hold the manufacturer accountable for what they described as a preventable defect that directly contributed to the fatal sequence of events on August 31, 2021.

The lawsuit argued that the design allowed damage to occur easily and that the steel braids inside the hose could be flattened without being visible during visual inspections.

Investigation Findings and Technical Cause

A command investigation conducted by the U.S. Navy, released in 2022, largely corroborated the technical theories presented by the plaintiffs. The investigation identified the root cause of the crash as the in-flight failure of a main rotor damper hose. This failure resulted in a total loss of damping for the main rotor system. Upon landing on the flight deck, the aircraft immediately entered a state of violent “ground resonance”, severe lateral vibrations that caused the rotor blades to strike the deck and the aircraft to roll over into the sea.

The Navy’s inquiry pinpointed the likely mechanism of damage to the use of a specific maintenance tool known as a “spindle pry bar.” Investigators determined that if this tool was used incorrectly or without sufficient clearance, it could inadvertently kink or crush the damper hose. Because the internal damage was not visible to the naked eye, the compromised hose remained in service until it failed under the stress of operations.

Following these findings, the Navy took immediate remedial action to prevent a recurrence. In late 2021, an “Interim Support Equipment Change” was issued, directing the modification of the spindle pry bar. A “hard stop” was added to the tool to physically prevent it from contacting the damper hose. Furthermore, a “Rapid Action Change” ordered the fleet-wide inspection and replacement of damper hoses. A 2022 memo signed by Vice Admiral Steve Koehler formally acknowledged that these modifications were necessary to prevent damage, validating the concerns regarding the interface between the maintenance tools and the aircraft’s design.

Legal Context and Future Implications

The resolution of this case draws attention to the legal complexities facing military families seeking redress for accidents at sea. Because the crash occurred approximately 60 nautical miles off the coast of San Diego, the case fell under the jurisdiction of the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA). Historically, DOHSA limits recovery strictly to “pecuniary loss,” which refers to the financial support the deceased would have provided to their dependents. It generally excludes damages for the families’ pain and suffering or the pre-death pain and suffering of the victims.

This legal limitation has been a subject of legislative debate. The “Fairness for Fallen Sailors Act,” introduced in the 2025-2026 Congress, aims to amend DOHSA to allow for non-pecuniary damages in non-commercial aviation accidents. While the bill had passed the House as of April 2025, it was still navigating the Senate at the time of this settlement. The existence of such legislation highlights the hurdles families face in securing what they view as comprehensive justice under current maritime law.

With the settlement now finalized, the civil litigation against Sikorsky regarding the “Loosefoot 616” crash is concluded for these plaintiffs. The case serves as a somber reminder of the critical importance of integrating human factors into aircraft design and the necessity of rigorous maintenance protocols. The modifications implemented by the Navy following the crash remain in effect, serving to protect current and future crews operating the MH-60S Sea Hawk.

FAQ

Question: Who were the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Sikorsky?
Answer: The lawsuit was filed by the families of Petty Officer 2nd Class James Buriak, Petty Officer 2nd Class Sarah Burns, and Petty Officer 3rd Class Bailey Tucker.

Question: What was the technical cause of the crash?
Answer: A U.S. Navy investigation determined the crash was caused by the failure of a main rotor damper hose, likely damaged during maintenance by a spindle pry bar, which led to severe vibrations upon landing.

Question: What is the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA)?
Answer: DOHSA is a 1920 federal law that governs wrongful death claims occurring more than three nautical miles from U.S. shores, typically limiting recovery to financial (pecuniary) losses rather than pain and suffering.

Sources

• Courthouse News Service